Obama/McCain -- who is more likable to Undecided voters?

I think there are personal traits about both that I find appealing and that I don't like that much. Rather than focussing on their personalities though I would take a look at where they stand on the issues and decide which ones I think are more important. While there are issues you may like about each I would consider then are all these issues equally important?

For instance I like McCain's stance on free trade far more than Obama's but at the moment I think Obama's stances on civil liberties and the separation of powers is more important.

 

I think on a pure likeability thing, they are split. I would guess McCain is more likeable on TV or in a speech-type atmosphere - like you said, Obama comes across as a bit distant at times. On the other hand, one-on-one or in person, I think Obama would be more "down to earth" and thus more likeable.

 

I don't feel like I have to like either of them because I will probably never get to meet him. Kinda like when you have a favorite athlete, you may not like his personality but you like his game. I just want someone who is smart and has great judgment. Obama fits these categories and personalities for me.

 

Thanks for being honest.

Likability is the only possible question an undecided voter could be considering at this point.

They are diametrically opposed on virtually every single issue. On virtually every issue, each would do pretty much the exact opposite of the other.

Given that, if you're still undecided, you are apparently under the illusion that the next president is going to have a beer with you. And the issue that is apparently of the greatest importance to you is how much you will enjoy the company during while drinking that beer.

I really can't identify with that kind of thinking at all, but I look forward to hearing how you wind up voting. And I'm rooting for you on that beer.

 

If you asked me this a year ago, it would be McCain by a mile. But he's turned into an angry, lying jerk. So at this point Obama has the advantage.

When it comes to making a choice for president, people should consider more than just policy positions, but likability isn't one I would have much use for. Try personality, leadership style, temperment (esp. under pressure) and how organized they are.

Some leaders are secure, others are very insecure and it isn't hard to determine which. Insecure leaders tend to choose subordinates who will agree with and enable them (i.e, "yes" people). Insecure leaders are also more secretive and go overboard with suspicion. Secure leaders are more open to feedback that differs from their own position. They also tend to choose people who are more qualified to do the job while focusing less on loyalty and past relationships.

The leadership style and temperment of the president shapes the personality of an administration. Some leaders are more vindictive and vengeful than others. Cross them once and you stay on their ****list indefinitely, unless you come back groveling with an apology. I don't want a president/administration distracted by settling a lot of scores.

Various candidates can have very similar views but their administrations can be quite different from each other. Read all of the policy papers and speeches you want. I encourage that. But don't stop there. Just watching the way McCain has conducted his campaign the last two years up to now gives me great pause. It's clear he isn't the most focused, disciplined and organized person in the world. By contrast, the leadership skill and style Obama has showed during his long campaign is what gives me confidence he can be president even though he's only been in the Senate a short time.

Because of the current occupant, I've added intelligence to the list.

 

I disagree here - I think as people who love politics, we don't always see the world outside of our bubble. 40 million or so people saw the Obama and McCain convention speechs - 57 million watched this debate. That means the interest in still growing, which also means that not everyone is tuned in yet. For many people, Friday might have been the first time some people really paid any attention to what the candidates believed (as opposed to all the negative ads that distort).

I think there are quite a few undecideds that simply don't know much about either candidate's views. Normally, the last month is when people really start paying attention, and we're heading to that part of the contest now. Remember - the remaining undecideds are a combination of the ones that don't care about the issues (the people you describe), people that are just low-info voters that don't know a lot yet, and people who are moderates and like some aspects of each candidate/party.

 

Good stuff.

 

Likeability gave us George Bush not once but Twice. It's highly overrated.

 

Major:

I see your points and I don't disagree with them. I just can't identify with people that fall into any of those categories, I guess.

I get being a moderate with different philosophies regarding domestic/foreign policy/social/fiscal issues. I just don't get being that way and not yet knowing who is more likely to represent one's views on the issues they regard to be most important.

These guys are just too different on every single major issue. On the economy, Iraq, foreign policy in general, abortion and other social issues, health care, the environment, energy, taxes, trade, etc. these guys are just way too far apart to have a hard time telling them apart.

And they have both been running for about two years, and dominating headlines all along the way.

I tend to think there are two main reasons we have undecided voters at this point in the longest election in our nation's history and the one that has generated the most interest and media attention in our history as well. By far.

1. Likability
2. People who agree with Obama on the issues and need for a change in direction but are still unsure as to whether or not he's ready and would be a safe choice.

I think that, after the 1st debate, there are probably considerably less people that fall into the second camp.

 

All the negatives and positives you bring up here remind me of Thomas Jefferson. Well, Jefferson wasn't considered a great speaker necessarily, but he was an intellectual. And I believe he had a reputation of being somewhat aloof as well.

 

Likeable gave us Jimmy Carter... and thank goodness only once!

 

Yeah, god forbid we should elect someone professorial. We certainly don't want to go so far as to elect someone smart enough to be a professor when we could elect a "regular guy" with eight homes and 13 cars.

Never mind the issues. Let's focus on who we like better: professorial 'community organizers' (ick!) or former POW's who left their disabled wives to marry into a zillion dollars.

The most disappointing thing about paying attention to politics is how outnumbered we are by people who don't.

 

QFT

Pick who you think will do a good job not who you want to have a beer with.

 

Well, don't for a guy who drinks it in public then...






http://utahbeer.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-beer.html

Or who has a beer named after him...

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2008/09/sixpoint_brews.html

or nicknamed after him...

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080326_335320.htm?campaign_id=twxa


Of course, the pictures up top happened AFTER Obama mocked Hillary for doing it first... as usual... a condemning follower...

Obama mocks Clinton's beer-shot

PITTSBURGH—Barack Obama ridiculed rival Hillary Clinton for a shot-and-a-beer photo op over the weekend in Indiana as he sought to counter the controversy over remarks he made about “bitter” feelings in small-town America.

Clinton downed a shot of Crown Royal whiskey, hoisted a beer and ate a slice of pepperoni pizza Saturday night at a restaurant in Crown Point, Ind., after spending the day branding Obama’s remarks “elitist.”

But in a speech to a forum on manufacturing issues, at which Clinton is scheduled to appear later this morning, Obama blasted support during her husband's administration for free trade deals, suggesting her connection with working-class voters was political theater.

“Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer,” Obama said, stirring laughter from an audience of steelworkers and steel industry executives.

“But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and the lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?” he continued.

The Clinton campaign responded with a statement e-mailed to reporters.

“With all due respect, this is the same politician who spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at the Philly market (albeit one that cost $99.99 a pound). Sen. Obama's speeches won’t hide his condescending views of Americans living in small towns," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in the statement.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_mocks_clintons_beer_and.html

 

I don't understand this at all. How can you find someone unlikable because he worked his ass off to become a highly educated man? You almost sound like you're jealous of his academic success.

 

No, anger over Nixon's pardon and Ford's political clumsiness gave us Carter. Ford never really gained the respect of the public because of how he became president and the pardon (whether you agree with it or not) may have killed his chances of winning in 1976. He also ran one of the worst campaigns ever and still came close. Jimmy Carter didn't win because of likability.

 

I support beer drinking by all our candidates.

 

Rileydog raised the issue of likeability but I don't think you can generalize that most undecideds are basing their decision on likeability. There are many undecideds who are concerned about various stances on issues that the candidates have and are still weighing those issues. For instance there are many who feel Obama has a better position regarding what to do in Iraq but are very worried about Obama's economic policies and vice versa. Many might consider a variety of these issues equally important and are still weighing them. Another thing about a long campaign too is that issues change and certain candidate stances may become more important depending on current events. I don't think this is a matter of not paying attention to the campaigns but of the evolving natures of them.

 

I saw this earlier this morning and think it's applicable to this thread (hopefully it hasn't already been posted):

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/COMMENTARY/809289997/-1/RSS

I've seen several people describe McCain as "eloquent" and "together" during the debates, but I really didn't see any of that. It wasn't so much that I had a problem with what he was saying. After all, it was a debate. But his demeanor definitely left a lot to be desired.